Golphin v. State

522 So. 2d 1043, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 882, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1345, 1988 WL 28294
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 6, 1988·No. No. 87-2885·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief because the motion makes no attempt to comply with the time requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850; nor does it contain an explanation justifying the untimely filing as required by the rule.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and STONE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Golphin v. State, 522 So. 2d 1043, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 882, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1345, 1988 WL 28294 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

522 So. 2d 1043 (Golphin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elkins v. State
555 So. 2d 441 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)